contact@onbelief.orgReader Responses and Commentaries Page 1
Many thanks from to those who have responded to open a debate about the philosophy of this site.
Noam: Very good statement. (in relation to the Manifesto page)
Polly: Many thanks. Excellent maxims. (in relation to the Manifesto page)
Roger: I am honoured to be quoted.
Betty: Very good, but as I said, I like the ritual. It's the hymns.
Commentary: The non-cognitive effects of beliefs are indeed powerful. I contend however that you can both sing and enjoy the beauty of christmas carols and secular Christmas songs without 'believing' a word of their lyrics. I presume you are saying the same thing.
Arthur: I like your highly amusing site ....I must print it out and take it to my philosophy class. (in relation to the Manifesto page)
Commentary: An unexpected advantage of the propositions. The value of entertainment should not be underestimated.
Margaret: You are just making non-belief your religion. (in relation to the Manifesto page)
Commentary: That stretches the meaning of religion too far in my opinion. Perhaps you mean mantra in the sense used in Hinduism for example. If anyone were to adopt the 17 propositions as a mantra rather than debate them that would be unfortunate.
Ian: I have a good quote for you by Stephen Roberts.
"I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."Commentary: Although there has been at least one contorted epistemological attempt to refute this idea, it is certainly an empowering thought.
Elspeth: People need something to believe in. I think I am a believer.
Commentary: The archeological evidence from the Neolithic period onwards suggests that humans have long created belief systems which cannot easily be rationalised. Belief systems therefore appear to play a non-cognitive role. In that sense, as the respondent says, it could be argued that people need something to believe in. The fact that beliefs may change during the course of an individual's lifetime demonstrate their potentially transient nature and so imply that some are of questionable value. In the longer term the rise of analytical philosophy and the rise of science provides a richer description of the world and hence alternative and perhaps more enduring ways of thinking. From a cultural perspective, the way in which we nurture our children and educate them to young adulthood is of great importance in the maintenance of traditional beliefs. A rational education, in the widest sense, will of course not stop original 'magical thinking' by individuals who have an innate drive toward inventiveness. Nevertheless, the influence of peer thinking in a more observationally based culture could produce significant future shifts away from our current traditions and beliefs. The 3 post-graduate medical qualifications of this respondent suggest that education, particularly of the medical variety, is surprisingly ineffective as a challenge to culturally embedded belief systems. It is to be hoped that the drive towards evidence based medicine will also have cultural effects on its practitioners with respect to traditional and emerging beliefs.
The analogy with parallel computing is perhaps valuable in this context. Change can come from the higher computational power of many minds acting together. This can be observed in the disciplined reporting of experimental observations and correction of ideas in science. However the same effect also produces cultural inertia and a resistance to change.
Ellie: Well done with Nobrainer. Why did you decide to write it?
Commentary: Ongoing production of this web site was in part a response to the brief statement of Prof Downie repeated on the quotation page. Consider the logical ramifications of his idea. In part, it is also a response to the narrowness of Dawkins attacks on religion in the God Delusion. We suffer many delusions particularly with respect to the limitations of present scientific explanations. Consider for example our almost total ignorance on the origins of life and the first self-replicating systems. (not to be confused with the diversification of species)
Ellie again: No. 2- aren't you contradicting that by writing this? I see you have tried to get around it with point 5? Number 15- Why not? even if your an atheist you can have meaning, a reason for living, ambitions, motivations
Commentary: I can say with conviction that you are of value to those around you. However I suggest to you that there is no more 'meaning' to your existence than a lump of rock. Being alive does not give you meaning any more than it does for your cat, a worm or a bacteria. I do not seek to impose any sanctions on you if you reject the propositions. I would also ask others not do so. Indeed I ask you not to believe in me or form a cult of the Blessed NoBrainer. I also undertake not to have you ostracised, brainwashed, prevented from taking up employment, disenfranchised, fined, imprisoned, enslaved, sent to the new world, tortured, mutilated, poisoned, crucified, turned into a pillar of salt, beheaded or have you stoned. In more minor undertakings, I promise not to baptise you, or threaten you with, excommunication, eternal damnation and the gnashing of teeth forever and ever. Furthermore I encourage you to enjoy life in a state of non-belief and hope that you are motivated to have a successful marriage, family life, career and anything else that you reasonably and legally desire. Go in peace.
Richard (aged 16): Why are you wasting your time and money on the site? You need to get back to the business
Commentary: I understand that it would be a rather boring world if we all had the same pre-occupations.
Your Response
Please indicate if your response is not intended for publication on this site. Your response might be shortened or paraphrased or be restricted to a particular point you have made.
I am happy to discuss the ideas expressed on this site with religious and non-religious people alike. However despite my contentious remarks about religion, I no longer see any personal value in debating the correctness of particular details of the many theologies that exist with the religious or 'non-believers' and do not obtain any satisfaction from doing so. Perhaps you could direct such comments to a 'believer', priest, minster of religion, theologian, philosopher, atheist or skeptical thinker as you think appropriate. I hope you will not see that request as arrogance on my part but merely as a desire to move on to other areas of debate, which at this time in my life, I view as more productive. If you have been personally insulted by what I have written you have my sincere apologies for I seek to challenge rather than insult. I can say very little to those who see all challenges to their beliefs as an insult, especially if those challenges come in the form of newspaper cartoons. Otherwise your comment is very welcome.
On the Nature of Belief
www.onbelief.org
Scotland, 12th October 2007 and thereafter
Copyright 2007 onwards
